India's reservation system has long remained at the centre of public debate. For decades, reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have shaped the country's social justice framework. In January 2019, a new chapter was added with the introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota. Through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the government reserved 10 percent of seats in educational institutions and public employment for economically disadvantaged families belonging to the general category.
The amendment was introduced in Parliament on the last day of a session and passed with remarkable speed. While it was widely welcomed as a measure to support economically disadvantaged sections outside the traditional reservation framework, the haste with which it was enacted left many critical questions unanswered.
In November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the EWS quota by a narrow 3–2 majority. The Court held that economically weaker citizens from the general category constitute a distinct disadvantaged group deserving of affirmative action. Yet an uncomfortable reality soon emerged: under the current eligibility criteria, nearly 98 percent of India's population potentially qualifies for EWS benefits. This statistic alone raises serious questions about the scheme's effectiveness in identifying the truly needy.
The issue has returned to the spotlight following the results of the 2025 Civil Services Examination. An investigation by The Indian Express into the backgrounds of the 104 candidates selected under the EWS category in the results declared in March 2025 has reignited a national debate. When information from social media profiles, coaching institutes, schools, and colleges is pieced together, a picture emerges that appears inconsistent with the original intent of the policy.
Among the 104 successful EWS candidates, at least 14 were graduates of the IITs and three of the NITs. At least 46 had studied in private schools charging annual fees ranging from ₹45,000 to ₹1.5 lakh. At least 28 came from business families engaged in sectors such as retail trade, textiles, sweets manufacturing, and steel fabrication. Around 10 had previously worked in private firms, multinational corporations, or major software companies before preparing for the UPSC examination. The list also includes alumni of elite private schools in Delhi charging annual fees well above ₹1 lakh and children of established business owners.
Admission to an IIT is itself among the most competitive achievements in India. The ability to pursue higher education at premier institutions and later move to Delhi for expensive UPSC preparation appears far removed from the realities faced by families struggling with genuine economic deprivation.
At least 67 candidates had attended prominent coaching institutes such as Vajiram & Ravi, Vajirao & Reddy, and Drishti IAS, where annual fees can exceed ₹2.5 lakh. Overall, at least 84 candidates received some form of professional coaching. This raises an obvious question: if a family earns less than ₹8 lakh annually, how does it simultaneously meet household expenses, education costs, coaching fees, travel expenses, and examination-related expenditures? The question exposes a fundamental weakness in the current EWS framework.
The eligibility criteria are based not only on income but also on property ownership. Families owning five acres or more of agricultural land, residential flats exceeding 1,000 square feet, or large urban plots are excluded. However, a significant loophole exists. For EWS certification purposes, the definition of "family" is limited to the applicant, parents, spouse, children below 18 years, and siblings below 18 years. Property held in the names of grandparents—an extremely common arrangement in India—is not taken into account.
Equally troubling is the absence of a robust mechanism for income verification. EWS certificates are generally issued by tehsildars or deputy collectors and are often based largely on self-declared income. While the Supreme Court has clarified that candidates must possess a valid EWS certificate before the prescribed cut-off date, the question of who verifies the authenticity of the information contained in these certificates remains inadequately addressed.
Yet amid this criticism, it is important not to lose sight of the genuine beneficiaries of the scheme. Among the 104 successful candidates are individuals whose circumstances clearly reflect economic hardship. One candidate's father is a retired soldier working as a security guard. Another candidate's father worked as a railway porter. One successful aspirant is the son of a school bus conductor, while several others come from households dependent on daily wage labour.
At least seven candidates studied in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, the government's residential schools serving rural India. Many come from Hindi-medium backgrounds, and agriculture remains the sole source of income for their families. Twenty-nine candidates have parents who are farmers from states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
These are the individuals the EWS quota was designed to support. Their achievements are inspiring and demonstrate the transformative potential of affirmative action. The problem is not their inclusion; it is the simultaneous inclusion of others whose socioeconomic circumstances appear substantially different.
The controversy surrounding UPSC topper Aastha Jain illustrates the complexity of the issue. Having secured Rank 186 in 2024 and entered the IPS, she later secured Rank 9 in the 2025 examination under the EWS category. According to publicly available information, her father owns a small grocery shop. The case sparked intense debate on social media. While some alleged misuse of the system, others defended her eligibility and called for a fact-based assessment rather than speculation.
Regardless of the specifics of any individual case, the controversy highlights broader questions. Can a family owning a small business legitimately be considered economically weak? Should an individual already serving as an IPS officer continue to avail EWS benefits in subsequent attempts? These questions deserve serious discussion.
Perhaps the most significant flaw in the EWS framework is the ₹8 lakh annual income ceiling. Ironically, this is the same threshold used to identify the OBC creamy layer. However, the purpose of the creamy layer concept is to exclude the economically advanced from reservation benefits, whereas in the EWS framework the same figure is used to define economic disadvantage. If nearly the entire population falls below this threshold, the concept of a "weaker section" loses much of its meaning.
India's vast regional disparities further complicate the issue. An annual household income of ₹8 lakh in Delhi may place a family comfortably within the middle class, whereas the same income in a rural district of Bihar may signify relative prosperity. Applying a uniform national threshold across dramatically different economic contexts raises concerns about fairness and accuracy.
The process of obtaining an EWS certificate remains relatively simple, often requiring little more than documentary declarations. The absence of rigorous verification is perhaps the scheme's greatest weakness. If relatively affluent households are able to secure benefits intended for the poor, the original objective of the policy is undermined. Institutions such as the UPSC and government authorities must therefore consider stronger verification mechanisms, including field-level assessments where necessary.
Meaningful reform is urgently needed. Income thresholds should be calibrated according to state-level realities and the urban-rural divide. Property held through extended family arrangements, including assets in the names of grandparents, should be considered during eligibility assessment. A three-tier verification system involving self-declarations, tax records, and field verification should be introduced. Eligibility claims from candidates whose families possess substantial economic resources should face greater scrutiny. Finally, the authority to issue EWS certificates could be strengthened through digital verification systems and enhanced institutional oversight.
Reservation has always been a sensitive issue in India. SC and ST reservations are rooted in the constitutional commitment to remedy centuries of social exclusion and discrimination. OBC reservation is based on social and educational backwardness. EWS reservation, however, rests solely on economic criteria—and income is perhaps the easiest criterion to conceal or manipulate.
Meanwhile, students from historically marginalized communities continue to face significant barriers even after securing admission to elite institutions. Reports of delayed scholarships, social discrimination, and unequal academic opportunities remain recurring concerns. Against this backdrop, an important question arises: are the children of railway porters, bus conductors, security guards, and marginal farmers truly receiving the benefits intended for them, or are those opportunities increasingly being captured by individuals with far greater social and economic advantages?
The idea behind the EWS quota was noble. It sought to provide opportunities to those from the general category who had been left behind economically. But when graduates of elite institutions, former employees of multinational corporations, children of established business families, and alumni of expensive private schools are routinely classified as "economically weak," it becomes difficult to avoid the conclusion that the system may be drifting away from its intended purpose.
The true beneficiaries of EWS reservation are those who live in the shadows of opportunity—the young woman whose father carried luggage on railway platforms to finance her education, the son of a bus conductor who cleared the UPSC through perseverance and self-study, the student from a remote village who succeeded despite overwhelming odds. Their success represents the real achievement of the policy.
When their stories are overshadowed by doubts about the eligibility of more privileged candidates, public confidence in the system erodes. The challenge before policymakers is not merely to tighten rules but to ensure their honest and effective implementation.
The government and institutions such as the UPSC must now confront a fundamental question: Is the EWS quota genuinely reaching those who need it most, or has it become a convenient pathway for those who are poor only on paper?
That question can no longer be ignored.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor